Congress Messes with Organic

(Beyond Pesticides, Technical Report,
December 2005) The Organic Trade Association
(OTA) moved its amendment to allow synthetic ingredients in the highest
category of organically labeled food through Congress in November 2005.
The maneuver, spirited through on an agriculture appropriations bill without
a public hearing by the Republican staff, left opponents fuming and shaking
their heads over the process and outcome. Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), a
supporter of organic, said on the Senate floor November 2 before the full
Senate passed the bill, “[B]ehind closed doors and without a single
debate, the Organic Foods Production Act was amended at the behest of
large food processors without the benefit of the organic community reaching
a compromise. To rush provisions into the law that have not been properly
vetted, that fail to close loopholes, and that do not reflect a consensus,
only undermines the integrity of the National Organic Program.”
The House passed the measure the previous week on October 28 as part of
the Conference Report on H.R. 2744, Agriculture, Rural Development, Food
and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006.
The measure passed despite an outpouring of over 325,000 consumer letters
and emails asking members of Congress to preserve the no-synthetics clause.

Earlier this summer, public input derailed the OTA amendment
from being included in the Senate bill, only to be included in the conference
bill without debate. Beyond Pesticides wrote to Congress before the vote:
“Attempts to amend OFPA through the appropriations process or other
legislative vehicles in the face of deep substantive disagreements will
cause severe divisiveness and undermine consumer confidence and trust
in the organic label and market. Instead, Congress should allow the regulatory
process to move forward as ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Harvey
v. USDA and afford consumers and other stakeholders the opportunity to
participate in an open and public discussion that enables fair and informed
decision making. . . Harvey v. USDA has brought into sharp focus key issues
regarding the use of synthetic substances in processed foods labeled organic.
The case puts a spotlight on USDA’s failure to adhere to a central
legal standard and principle in the Act. The Act establishes processed
food labeled organic (displaying the USDA organic seal) as 100 percent
natural, of which 95 percent must be organic ingredients and up to five
percent may be non-organic when organic is not available. Other categories
of organic labeling, including the ‘made with organic’ label,
allow for the use of synthetic ingredients.”

Senator Feingold (D-WI) said on the Senate floor, “The
strength of the organic certification and labeling program through USDA
has been the ability of organic consumers, farmers, processors, and retailers
to work together to create a seal that everyone has confidence in. The
Harvey court decision challenged some of the procedures in place for organic
farming and food processing. This situation should have caused the organic
community to again come together, openly discuss the issues, and more
than likely propose consensus changes to the law to both ensure the reputation
of the organic label and allow for the continued record growth of the
organic market. . . [B]ackroom deals in the dead of night are not the
way to go and have the potential for undermining confidence in the entire
organic program.” “The real losers today are America’s
organic consumers who do not expect food labeled as ‘organic’
to contain artificial (or synthetic) ingredients,” says Dr. Urvashi
Rangan, senior scientist and policy analyst at Consumers Union. As organizations
regroup to determine next steps, USDA will have to issue new regulations
to implement the new law. Stay tuned for more analysis and action.